Years know that is certainly true and as a great example of that i open my big mouth a few months ago and said paul, i should be introducing you. Suddenly i am not introducing paul. [laughing] so that was not planned but the truth is its a great honor and a real pleasure to do so. Ive known paul for quite some time, and he knows this but id like to try to bear sin. He doesnt and bears easily enough i found that paul is truly one of my heroes in life and has them or to influence my thinking that just about anyone on the planet, and you know some of people that ive worked with as well. So paul, youve just been an amazing part of my life, and thank you for everything that you done for all of us in the green building, in the environmental world so thank you, paul. I had an opportunity when the ecology of commerce came out to have some time back then with paul, and he as a general influenced my thinking from that moment forward. Theres a lot of people that can say the same, and im sure many of you here have had that same response when youve read his words, his clarity, his ability to look at the world very carefully and present it back and reflect back, ideas in a way that make you think and make you challenge assumptions, which is what we needed. Im just so excited about his new book. Not just because on page 188 i mentioned which is really cool. [laughing] but 188, go back and look there. But really this is the right book at the right time, and it is one of those books that you shouldnt just read. You should buy multiple copies. Im not getting any royalties just to be clear, but you should be giving this to everybody that you can. We need more and more emphasis on fax these days, not alternate fax but real facts. We need more data. We need more help, right . And we need more solutions to problems, not just problems. And paul and his huge team of people that have contributed have brought this amazing piece of work to bear. So with that i would like to welcome paul to the stage. Please give him a huge round of applause. [applause] thank you, jason. Thanks for coming out. It is a Beautiful Day in seattle. I understand its gone tomorrow. I have spoken your before and i just love to speak in places where people have spoken, if you know what i mean. Its like playing in praying in a place for people praye to r meditate were people of meditative. There something in the building, in the fabric of the place thats different than something new and different. Drawdown, drawdown means that first point in time, Greenhouse Gases speak and go down on a yeartoyear basis. Thats the definition. How did drawdown . Start . Is starting in 2001 when a red the summary third assessment. And like the ones that preceded it it was more pessimistic as a follow to get more pessimistic the reason for that isnt so much the things that change the its theres less suppression, because there are consensus report but theres no such thing as scientific consensus. Science is evidentiary. Its not about consensus. The consensus is in the saudi arabians and the chinese and the russians and the venezuelans oppressing the projection of the science of the fantastic group of people that comprise the igcc. I looked at it, had a big problem. I was educated in the 70s. Its not difficult to understand actually. And so later in that year i will show you slide that there was data presented for the solution and everybody was very excited about it. And this is what captured my attention at that time. Actually the first slide i want to show you before that is really where we are and where we are as that straight line. And so oftentimes which it is language about Climate Change, about medication, reduction, stabilization, about net zero. You hear this language. Well, that dotted line no human being of any shape medical form even as a primary form has existed on the earth when the levels of co2 were about that dotted line. So anybody who says they know its going to happen about the dotted line is guessing, may be inaccurate guess or good signs but it is total speculation. We dont know. In 2001 even more so now when people are talking about, this is 2001 easily, just, just a little bit higher now in 2017. The point being is that we are so far beyond anything that this pc to ever encounter or lived within. And that peak to the left, the first peak to the leftright there, thats it. 125,000 years ago. It was 285, okay, in terms of co2. At the time the hippopotamus and crocodiles in the delta. The sea level is 20 feet to 30 feet higher in the ocean. There were crocodiles and alligators in alaska and lyons and giraffes in germany. It was a very different climate regime, and that was 285. We are at 402. So at that time and especially now its really important to name the goal. You dont name the goal, youre not going to probably hit it. If you dont know the goal, if you dont understand the goal, and the goal is drawdown. So when you use words like, words are used like mitigation reduction and slowing down, its really like thelma and louise in slow motion. If youre going over clip and useful down you go over the cliff more slowly, okay next youre going down the wrong road, you slow down, still the wrong road. The language about how we should address this problem has been very as they say, whats the word . We need weak kneed in the really hopeful. Someone said to me what an ambitious goal. I said no, im not ambitious. You guys are really, you are an ambitious. You dont know, its like this is not ambitious. This is about preserving civilization. This is about creating the conditions in which music, art, society, culture, knowledge can grow, virgin, blossom. This is for us. This is the perfect period of climatic stability. Theres no stability on that line anyway. No such thing. So what i saw there was this, the Carbon Mitigation Initiative came out with the famous global wages. These are eight wedges 1,000,000,001 billion tons eache emissions by 2050. Stabilize, in other words, peak. I looked at them and these are the 15 solutions that comprise those eight wedges. I looked at them like this, which is all those are great. Those solutions that only can be done by large corporations. I mean large conservative corporations like energy and utility and car companies. All 11 of those, and at the time though solution were deeply underwater financially. That is to say, if the even more conservative board of directors of those corporations said great, lets do it, they would be sued for additional responsibility and is corporations what a loss their balance sheet. So in other words, what . Thats why i started to get concerned. This is solutions . I dont get it. I dont get it. And furthermore what can you do . Drive less. You. Thats it. What can cities do . Cities, towns, villages, neighborhoods, small businesses, farmers, grasslands, they are not there. The people who werent there. This is all about things. So i went around at time and talk to friends at nrdc and sierra club and said we should make a list, figure out what can we do . We dont know what he can do. Im just like you. What can i do . What can we do . Figure out how to solve this. Its a great idea. Carbon impact and what would happen in 30 years. Its impossible. Maybe its not. Who knows . What would it cost . Basic great idea. We dont have the expertise. I dont either. And so i kept asking others to do it and i would did it and i forgot about it. I forgot about until 2012 when an article came out in Rolling Stones and then the new york times. I had Friends Company and say literally quote its game over. Its game over. I tried. I worked hard. Its futile. My response, im going, moved to british columbia. Its like as if that was a solution. I thought maybe its the other way around. Maybe its game on. When its that level of frankly this case terror. If you google the top Ten Solutions to Global Warming or Climate Change right now, these are two esteemed scientific organizations, these are the top five. Dont forget to put that power strip in your entertainment center. Its like, i mean, the solutions that are proffered out there are proverbs, not solutions, like love your mother. Good idea. Unit, dont forget the power strip. Good idea. Wash it in cold water. Change delightful. Whats happened is the communication about Climate Change and Global Warming has been like this is what you can do and okay, and its just like it was all on your shoulders. The implication was that if you didnt do it and you feel guilty and you feel bad about yourself, but these are so cute. [laughing] forego fossil fuels. Try it for 24 hours. Try it. Cant eat food that was shipped in. You cant, you know, think about it. Its very difficult to do. Move closer to work. Like you can afford that. [laughing] im moving to downtown seattle. Im rich. So this is the book, drawdown the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming let me explain the first part of the title, ever propose. The reason we can say the most comprehensive point everest because no one has ever propose a plan. [laughing] we had the high grad and we still have it. We can say the most brilliant, artistic, nuance, whatever in the title and be true. Because nothing to compare it with, which is sort of astonishingly think about it. Ill get back to that. And so thats the book, and this is what it looks like conceptually. Shows that point, that Inflection Point is drawdown and thats the goal. We want to go the other way. Whats affecting our perception about this is how we get the news, and how we get the news is really in headlines can usually with a sense of threat of doom and gloom. It may not be true in this room but certainly the greater mass of people in the united states, in the world get the news this way. I love this one. Because as you can see over here, you have wife smashes has been overhead and keep the mummified in sheet for years. Like if youre on level of importance. Heres mark smith, they guide congress who always says Climate Change is a conspiracy. This is a good one, which is severe consequences and the real reason so many women have just been so much time getting ready. I mean, so would you present information, besides its actually good on this headline. They are accurate. Plenty of things you never knew, you could do with cocacola. Thetheyre doing the right thins with cocacola. [laughing] they are putting it down the toilet. And this one, the bottom as is the effects will be felt for 10,000 years. Thats a game over headline if i ever saw one. A very good paper and the only thing i can say about the paper is its not a farmer or a gardener, and then so drawdown. Who are we . We are not me. We had no money. I went to a foundation and said we want to do this thing and they said show was when you get done. I need the money now. Anyway, so i borrowed money from my Retirement Plan and gave, might have been given to me to write a book by an italian philanthropist. So we started that we had no money to hire a really great staff, and a big staff that is. We put out the call around the world to academics and students for Research Fellows and we were overwhelmed with the most amazing resumes, people, ive one the award, and white house fellow, im a rhodes scholar, better resume 20 sixth and i have now. And these astonishing people all over the world, and this is who they are. Not all of them thats a lot of them. Almost half are women, 40 , half at phds. They all have advanced degrees. They are from 22 countries, Six Continents and this is drawdown. This is who did the research. You can stand up. [applause] and i thought if were going to do this, we have to be a coalition. There has to be a collaboration it has to be as talking to us we talking to we. Not think ive got a plan. Weve got one in the white house. Thats the worst thing you want is a white male with a plan. Thats just not going to cut it. So we needed man and women with an idea and with a heart and compassion and with great scientific bites. And we also got 128 advisors. These are some of them. Along with 128 advisors we have about 40 outside expert science reviewers. What we did is just collect all the solutions. Were going to map, metal and much of the top 100 solutions. That was a selfimposed mandate. We started gathering the ball and going to them, looking, checking, doing back of the napkin stuff. One by one we accumulated this list thats in the book. Some of them dropped out when we got deeper into didnt and we had at some, but basically it came down to 80 that remodeled and 20 which we call coming attractions, they are valid scientific but theres really not sufficient data in terms of the carbon of the financial impact. We modeled both the carbon impact and the financial. Whats the cost, the return, the net operating savings, et cetera. So we did both, and on the carbon we only used peerreviewed science. Thats the only info we use. Not anecdotal signs, not internet sites to we use real science. And so, and we also did in such a way that we always chose a more conservative number. When we had a choice on foot conservative. The criticism we got for what you going to see from our advisors and from outside scientific experts as far as you too conservative them its too low. Its better, cheaper. Theres were in fact. Thats exactly the criticism we want. That was our purpose. We want people to say its that you fluffed it up or anything like that. So what do we do . We just do math. Thats what we do. The math has been done and whats going to happen if we dont act but it has not been done on the Top Solutions to Global Warming. Anan anthropologist want to fige out why we didnt do that. I dont know. I have no explanation, dont ask me in the q a. I dont know. I spent 16, well, up to now 16 years, but 13 years asking other people. Good idea, you know. Okay. [laughing] so what you see, and the first one is the right by 2050, and that is, in fact. Theres only two things you could do about that with respect to Global Warming. Stop putting greenhouses gases up there, conservation efficiency or substitution. Or sequestration, which is photosynthesis, grasslands, forest lands and bring back to earth, bring it back on where it came from. This is a measurement in 2050. This is the number of gigatons which is a billion tons with 16. 6 billion tons of co2 that is reduced, avoided or sequestered, depending on the solution. This is the net cost to the net cost is the cost compared to what you would do if you were not going to do this. It would be combined gas, coal plant, to many of which country where, and what does cost more or less . In this case it actually cost much less. The last figure is over the lifetime to 2050 how much money would it cost. We to make money or lose money . You would save 1. 02 trillion. And so with this go this is improved rice production. Rice is a big source of methane, and if you change the production methodology, costs nothing. Take the water off the pad in the middle and let it be, anaerobic. You increase increase productiva better yield, spatial plan for the park, actually cost less, produce more. Produces methane production by 50 . As you can see the cost is one farmer walking across the stilted next one. Thats it. There is zero cost to the solution. But it saves a lot of money. This is offshore wind. This is not photoshop. This is in norfolk and its a triathlete going by the megawatt wind turbines. Ill get back to wind. Coastal wetlands. This is nuclear. We got criticize by greenpeace, how could you report nuclear on that . Its a good question. A fair question to we put it in because our mandate was a map, measure model the top 100 solutions of Global Warming. That doesnt mean we are advocates, doesnt mean theres not solutions in your that have spillover effect. As a mean solutions that are called regret solutions. Most of them are no regrets which mean we should do if theres no Climate Science whatsoever. So many benefits in terms of peace and security and health and wellbeing and jobs. But some of them are the other way around. This is certainly one of them. But the reason we did is because we had to maintain objectivity. If we start saying i dont like the solution, leave it out, or this is a good one, my friends are doing it, then whole book and all the book would be completely suspect and thrown out. So thats why its included. I happen to think its the most ridiculous way people have ever invented a way to boil water. Thats all it does is boil water. Lets be real. Theres a magic to this. This is a rooftop solar what we try to do with the imagery is to try to open up, get rid of the coal chaise around these things. Its not a drone shot of the land in the suburbs with solar panels and shingled roast. Its like how inspiring is that . Here is a woman in lake titicaca with her two daughters living on a Strong Island which will sink if you doesnt replace the straw every three months. She was using kerosene at night on a Strong Island. And now she has a solar panel. No wonder she is greening. Of course, smiling. Her daughters can learn and read at night. We want to make sure we could look at the solutions in a broader canvas, not just as inanimate objects that are sold and have a renewable as an Energy Source but have many more the net. This is the number ten solution to this is one of my favorites called educating girls. This is number six, way up there. You know the drill. Im sure you do from girls rising, and the girl effect and so much work has been done in this area, which is what happens if a girl isnt taken out of school in sixth grade, prepuberty and made off by her culture or family or for whatever reason. And what happens is she gets to choose to be a woman on her own terms instead of being imposed upon, and her rate of reproduction goes five average and higher in certain countries. And if she is allowed to go to tenth, 11th, 12th grade and shsheathing is a very different person, and the average reproduction age is below replacement rate, and she, because of education, earns more, puts more resources into her children. Her sons and daughters do the same thing i as she did in terms of their family planning, and the impact is significant. I want to get back to this because its really important to this is Forest Protection. Doesnt rank high because they are there already. Were not going to make too many primary forests but you see in the bottom the amount of c